Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajinder Singh vs Sh. Naresh Kumar on 11 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.606/2017
% 11th July, 2017
SH. RAJINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Chauhan,
Advocate.
versus
SH. NARESH KUMAR ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.23776/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.606/2017
2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant
impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 3.3.2017 decreeing
the suit for recovery of Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum filed
for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff
pleaded that he entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.6.2012 with
the appellant/defendant for purchasing appellant's property bearing no.
F-26, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi for a sum of Rs.22 lacs
of which a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was paid as advance/earnest money. The
respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant failed to
perform his part of the contract, and therefore, the agreement to sell
was cancelled and resultantly the respondent/plaintiff became entitled
to the double the amount of earnest money in terms of relevant clause
of the agreement to sell i.e an amount of Rs.5 lacs. The subject suit
was therefore filed for recovery of Rs.5 lacs along with interest.
4. The appellant/defendant though appeared and contested
the suit, it is seen that the right of the appellant/defendant to cross-
examine PW-1 was closed after repeated opportunities were not
utilized. The appellant/defendant also failed to lead evidence despite
repeated opportunities and ultimately the right of the
appellant/defendant to lead evidence was also closed. The impugned
judgment in para 12 refers to the detailed order passed by the trial court
on 7.2.2017 as to how the appellant/defendant repeatedly failed to
utilize the opportunities for cross-examination of PW-1 and leading his
own evidence and thereby resulting in closing of his right. Therefore it
is seen that whereas the respondent/plaintiff proved his case and
showed that he paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs to the appellant/defendant in
terms of the subject agreement to sell dated 24.6.2012 Ex.PW1/1, the
appellant/defendant led no evidence and did not cross-examine the
witness of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly the trial court was
entitled to decree the suit because the respondent/plaintiff had proved
his case and the appellant/defendant failed to do so.
5. A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities.
Respondent/plaintiff discharged his onus of proof and therefore the suit
was decreed for a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs being the amount received by the
appellant/defendant under the subject agreement to sell. Even the rate
of interest granted by the trial court is extremely reasonable @ 6% per
annum.
6. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment. Dismissed.
JULY 11, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
